ORIGINAL: Sylvan
ORIGINAL: MeanV2
I just can't understand how some will argue with black & white figures, but I should have expected it
When observations, i.e. test data, disagree with theory then 1 or the other is wrong. That's obvious. Either the theory that explainsthe phenomenon is flawed or the observation of what happened was flawed.It's said In science that theory is king. Whatthat means in practice is that when observations disagree with accepted theory then skepticism should be aimed first at the observation. Only after independent testers have repeatedly duplicated the observations that go against the theory is the theory questioned.Then old theory is modified and/or new theories are developed to better explain the phenomenon in light of the new data. The new theories go through the process I roughly described before until 1 rises as the best explanation of the phenomenonwe have to go by.
So yes, you should have expected it. That's how science is supposed to work. Many here seem to be operatiing under the assumption that data is king. Well it might be in some circles, but they certainly wouldn't be scientific circles.
A quick anecdote... I used to love to watch Cosmos. For those of you who aren't old enough to know, it was a PBS program about, surprise surprise, the cosmos and it was hosted by the late dr. Carl Sagan. He once made a statement that always stuck with me. He said that facts are a dime a dozen, in science theory is king.
So MeanV, I hope this helpls you
"understand how some will argue with black & white figures".
Not in the real world it doesn't. We have in our Lightwave System group littlerly 1/2 doz modelers, who only deal with theory. They question and argue and debate constantly with lightwave engineers, but in the end, we win. They rarely match my lab results. And usually find a flaw in thier simulink code based off our real world results. So its assumed thier theory is flawed. I have worked at a bunch of companies that deal with physics, and none of them ever shipped a product based off of theory. The lab results are rule.
I guarntee you right now, your ability to communicate and spew your arrogance is running over a system I had a part in designing. Not theory, real lab results. The high capacity optics market is extremely competitive, and a company would fold up if it operated on theory or used it as a rule. Hense Corvis and a bunch of other startups that had wonderful theory.